Not sure about it being a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent, but its a red card everyday of the week.

Wouldnt be at all surprised if he got 4-6 games.

How do you know if he's concussed or not without the test? You can't just take a player's word for it. If he was hit in the head that hard that he stayed down and if the challenge was that bad it was deemed a red card, then that player should definitely have been checked.

At the end of the day, if it was an attack to the head and he was unable to get back up, you should always check the player properly.

He got 1 match (nearly 2 with the 71 minutes from yesterday)

What is a “ foul to the head “?

Your post doesn’t make much sense .

What was risky ?

Who said it was “a foul to the head “ ?

“It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off “

Wow !



“

Which coaches?

I thought the technique was perfect, not late, not a shoulder not high.. If you hit someone that had in the chin/head they are going to be spark out, he wasn't so it proves he hit him in the chest. I'd be staggered if he even got a 1 match ban for it. Seems he got sent off for a tackle that could have been bad, but wasn't..

Your right except the technique wasn't right it was late it was high so apart from them mistakes your spot on

Is it not pretty self-explanatory?
A foul to the head is foul play involving contact with the head. I genuinely can't believe that's had to be spelt out!


Rushing in on a player to put in a big shot. It's always risky.


If there was no apparent foul to the head, why was he sent off?

What's the wow for?

If any player wished to do intentionally harm another player by use of shoulder to the head, it would indeed smash their face in. It's not hard to miss if intending to do it.

You seem to be struggling with your comprehension this weekend.

So if a player uses his shoulder to the head of an opponent it would “smash his face in “.

And I am “struggling with my comprehension “..

Explain struggling with my comprehension ....you are making a fool of yourself .

Not had the chance to re watch the game yet.Probably won't tbh.If it had been Carney on Kelly doing same you lot would have been howling for red. I didn't notice anything out of ordinary from Stand and agree Kendall wasn't going to penalise the tackle. Just one of those things and if it had cost you the game I could understand the bleating.

]

Weird post. Part of been a fan is screaming red, doesn’t invalidate the debate afterwards.

He went for the hit and got it wrong. I was apoplectic at the time that he got sent off but he did contact the head. The only thing I disagree with is looking at it a dozen times in slow motion. The game isn't played in slow motion.

Explain struggling with comprehension? The fact I'm having to explain it is proof you're struggling with it!

When you keep needing to ask questions about what things mean, it shows a lack of comprehension.

Let me fill in the blanks that so so conveniently left out of your first line: if a player, in a "clear attempt to injure" (your words), was to use a shoulder in the tackle and aim for the head in that situation, it would indeed smash his face in.

Which part are you struggling with? Tell me what you think it means and I'll help you.